capabilities / list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the listing is restricted to implemented and read-only capabilities, which is a meaningful scope qualifier but not rich behavioral context (no mention of ordering, scale, or response shape).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word ('implemented', 'read-only', 'schemas') carries scope information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description should say what the response looks like — a list of capability names with schema payloads — and it only gestures at this with 'and their schemas'. Adequate to select the tool, thin on what to expect back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The absence of any parameter text is appropriate rather than a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (implemented read-only capabilities plus their schemas), which is clear enough to act on. It doesn't distinguish itself from discovery-oriented siblings such as skills.list or registry.list_contracts, so an agent can't tell from the text alone which listing tool answers which question.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to call this versus skills.list or the registry listing tools, nor any note that it is typically a session-start introspection call. Usage is only weakly implied by 'implemented' and 'read-only'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.